FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus

June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

Pindi
the answer to (a) is “maybe”. Someone might have covered all the streets in the town because the buildings were being painted.
The answer is yes. I didn't say the pavement or the sidewalk would get wet. I said the streets will get wet. The streets are the area immediately below where it is raining. In cases like these, if I define the conditions for the mental framework the same way that I define the conditions for the real world, the two will correspond. If that wasn't the case, there would be no such thing as sound arguments, only valid arguments. Naturally, if you define the conditions for one differently than for the other, as you are attempting to do, they will not correspond.
If you take SB’s example “this planet is both Jupiter and Saturn at the same time”, (or however he phrased it) then yes, logic can tell us that is false.
That is correct. So the point is made.StephenB_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Vivd, it depends what you are trying to ascertain is false. If you take SB's example "this planet is both Jupiter and Saturn at the same time", (or however he phrased it) then yes, logic can tell us that is false. If the statement is, "I don't like cricket", or, ("Pindi doesn't like cricket" to use the third person), then logic won't help you determine whether that is false or not. (For the record, it is).Pindi_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

SB@509, the answer to (a) is "maybe". Someone might have covered all the streets in the town because the buildings were being painted. Unlikely, but possible. So logic can't answer that question about the real world for the obvious reason as jdk notes that most statements about the world have an empirical component that has to be taken account of. I guess you could rephrase it "if it rains, and there is nothing stopping the rain reaching the ground, the streets will get wet". But even then one could think of scenarios when this wasn't true. The road might be so hot, and it might be so sunny (ie a sun shower) that every drop of rain varporised as soon as it touched the road.Pindi_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

PS: Just as a reminder to MS et al, here is where those plumbline tests are going:
it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .") Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
kairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

WJM:
. . . I’ve never seen KF argue from the Bible to an objective morality, but rather from the concept of self-evident truth, with an obvious example, to a rational moral structure using logic to extrapolate from those truths and towards what the presence of self-evident moral truth means.
Correct. And for the obvious reason. Which brings me to the little matter of insistent, even habitual gross misrepresentation to the point of setting up and knocking over a strawman. This decisively, self-referentially undercuts MS' rhetorical appeal to the golden rule. (Which is BTW a guide to moral reasoning, not a grounding framework for morality.) In short, MS is unable to sustain his own framework even in the context where he proposes it. Going on to the injection of village atheist type anti-Christian (and implicitly anti-Semitic) rants, it is noteworthy that the strawman caricature is used to set up an excuse to spew rhetorical venom. The cynical assumption is, allow it to dominate in silence or get caught up in a toxic tangential quarrel in which the village atheists and fellow travellers spew from lists compiled over centuries that most Christians have not spent time refuting or learning the refutations of. And of course the root issues will long since have been lost in the toxic, polarised rhetorical clouds. What's the answer, only a day or so after having had to deal with an attempt to drag discussion into the gutter of prurience and sexual pathologies and follies? First, we can realise the fundamental intellectual dishonesty at work. If such objectors seriously wanted answers, they would go over to William Lane Craig or Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank or JPH's Tekton or many other places that do engage such matters in great detail, or the like. So, the very fact that they are playing the garbage on the lawn game tells us they know they do not have the better of the case. I have pointed above to where I make a discussion on some of the problem, and I took time to give some historic perspective on dealing with real moral dilemmas. My basic answer is to stand by the Sacred Road with Petain in 1916, sending boys up the road to the mincer in progress at Verdun, knowing that only a few days later shattered remnants scarred for life will be limping back down this same road. No retreat is possible, France must bleed out its youth to hold the line here, now: they shall not pass, for if they do, the result is a nightmare. My heart lurched. That is Barnett's rendering of Petain's response, as I recall from the book I found in my Uni Library 30+ years ago. Until your heart has lurched, gravely wounded, there are some things you simply cannot soundly address. That's why I suggested, stand in Eisenhower's shoes for a few moments. Then, Churchill's and so forth. Until then, supercillious gotcha talking points will only inadvertently expose the fundamental shallowness and nihilism that are eating out our civilisation's core. These objectors cannot even understand why I grieve the march of folly we are on, and the horrors that likely lurk at the foot of the crumbling cliff we so foolishly stand on. Anyway, I have come to realise that if you make a crooked yardstick your standard, the real truth and right cannot pass the crooked test. That is because they are aligned to reality, not the crookedness that has been substituted. So, we need to go back to plumbline test cases that expose the crookedness, then, maybe, we can set about sorting out the mess. A look above will tell us a lot about how, by and large, the typical objectors and agit prop, cultural marxism influenced activists we are dealing with consistently evade plumblines. A sobering warning. Yes, over the past day or so, someone did begin to deal seriously. Maybe, there is a glimmer of hope. This time, it is not nuke threshold, nukes are already in play. Meanwhile, I am still quite busy, and still have travel to deal with. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

I asked: “Why ought we base our oughts on things that we universally would dislike if they happened to us?” MatSpirit responded:
So we can have an objective moral code that keeps others from doing bad things to us.
I have some follow up questions: 1. How would such a code keep others from doing bad things to us? 2. Why should I obey such a code if I feel like doing things that are against the moral code?
KF has been searching for an IS to ground his OUGHTS on for years without much success...
You're mistaken. KF has not been searching for an is to ground his oughts on; he's been asking atheists and materialists what they ground their oughts on.
...and that’s sad because there’s a big IS laying there right in front of everybody he could use.
To be fair, there are lots of "is" commodities one could pin their oughts to; the question is whether or not those "is" commodities stand up to rational scrutiny.
It’s objective, everybody can see it, you can reason from it to ought and the oughts are pretty sound.
Well, you have yet to demonstrate the "soundness" of your "is" premise - which is why I'm asking you questions.
So, i thought I’d give KF and all the other people on this blog who are searching for an objective ground to morality a hand by passing on Jesus’s suggestion.
I assume you're being tongue-in-cheek here. I doubt there are many people on this blog searching for an is to ground their oughts.
I don’t know if he will accept it though since KF seems to be pretty much married to the idea that you can somehow extract an objective morality from the Bible and Christian tradition.
I think your understanding and or comprehension of what KF writes is highly suspect here. In any event, I'm not that familiar with what is written in the Bible, so let's try to steer our particular conversation away from that, if you don't mind.
You’re darn right it can! Just look at Exodus for an example. It portrays God Himself causing the entirely needless murders of at least a million innocent children. He didnt have to do it! Pharoah threw in the towel. He was going to let the Israelis go, but God hardened Pharoah’s heart so God could kill those kids. And yet, since God is supposed to be entirely good, killing those innocent kids must have also been entirely moral. I wish you’d explain just how that works in your system of morality, though, because I can’t fit it into my system at all.
As I said, I'm not that familiar with the Bible, so I'm hardly in a position to argue about it might say. I'm not a Christian. In my long time at this blog I've never seen KF argue from the Bible to an objective morality, but rather from the concept of self-evident truth, with an obvious example, to a rational moral structure using logic to extrapolate from those truths and towards what the presence of self-evident moral truth means.
I have another question. WHY is it immoral in your system of morality to murder innocent children?
There is no "why" to it. It's a fact sewn into the very fabric of reality - an expression of natural moral law. It's like asking "why" 1+1=2, or asking "why" A=A. Self-evident truths are what we use logic to reason from to gain insight on moral problems that are not self-evident. IOW, such moral truths are the foundation for clear reasoning towards developing a broader moral system.
If you are confronted with a person who sincerely believes that it’s alright to murder innocent children, how would you refute that belief? What reasons would you give? Please show your work.
There is no reasoning with someone that denies a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths are that which we reason from; they are the statements that form the basis of how we prove or argue for other things. Thus, denying a self-evident truth lands one in logical absurdity where reason and argument are meaningless.
A Golden Rule based morality answers that question by saying murder is bad because it’s one of the things we universally want to avoid happening to ourselves, so we forbid everybody from doing it to anybody.
You seem to look at morality from a perspective of what we enforce on others. Perhaps that's part of the problem. Laws are rules we enforce on everyone; morals are rules we hold that we ourselves should live by whether or not they are enforced (such as by law). So my question, again, is: why should I behave according to the code you offer (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?William J Murray_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

SB, I note a possible loaded claim:
We cannot “rely on logic to absolutely be the arbitrar of what is false”
I suggest, the actual point is that where a set of claims or implications about the real world has in it a contradiction, at least one of the contradictory claims will be false. Thus, coherence is ONE test of error in sets of truth claims, not THE test. Of course if S has or implies X and Y where Y = ~X, and X and Y are core to S, then S, the system is incoherent and falsified. That's because X and Y would be essential to S being S. Dropping X or Y or both would materially alter S into ~S. KF PS: Of course, distinct identity has ontological import, not just epistemological or psychological, and so we should recognise that logic can and does significantly constrain what is or can be true. C S Lewis was fond of the example, more or less that if one puts a sixpence, a three-pence and three pennies in a drawer on three successive days then on the fourth comes in to find less than a shilling's worth, then it is not the laws of logic that one suspects as having been broken, but those of England.kairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

jdk
We cannot “rely on logic to absolutely be the arbitrar of what is false”, nor true, unless we limit our scope to abstract logical systems.
Well, jdk, let's put your claim to the test. I will use logic to draw two conclusions about the *real world,*:which of course transcends abstract logical systems. [a] If it rains, the streets will get wet. [b] The planet Jupiter cannot also be the planet Saturn. Are those two statements about the real world true?StephenB_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Logic, by itself, cannot tell us what is false about the real world. Logic, by itself, cannot tell us what is true about the real world either. You misrepresent my points to leave out the "by itself" part.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

JDK re 503 Now was that so hard? As I said it required a simple yes or no. Here is a suggestion when one sentence will do " No logic cannot tell us what is false in the real world" don't write 5 paragraphs saying the same thing. Thanks Vividvividbleau_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

You know you are just being provocative and difficult, don’t you, UB.
Why-- thanks Jack. And you are being disingenuous. You don't avoid the conversation because you have no knowledge, you do it because the logic and observation are overwhelming.Upright BiPed_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

You know you are just being provocative and difficult, don't you, UB. I didn't say shut up. I'm saying that it makes no sense to keep asking me this question. Sure, I know some, perhaps even more than the average layperson, about the history of DNA, the general idea of its structure, and a bit about genetic. But I don't know anywhere close to enough to talk details. That's very clear, I think.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

UB, give it up
Ah yes, that favorite initial instinct -- that someone should just shut up.
I have virtually no knowledge that would allow me to discuss that subject.
Of course. The idea that DNA contains encoded memory is almost a secret. Obviously, few people even know who Francis Crick and James Watson were, and fewer still have ever heard that genes are translated into proteins.Upright BiPed_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

I am not saying maybe. I am saying that the answer to the question " Can logic tell us what is false?"about the real world and the answer to the question " Can logic tell us what is true?" about the real world are both no in the sense that logic alone can do neither. We cannot "rely on logic to absolutely be the arbitrar of what is false", nor true, unless we limit our scope to abstract logical systems. Everything else involves some kind of empirical experience to be the content of the propositions to which we wish to apply logic.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

JDK Actually it is a simple yes or no, what your saying is it depends! To say it depends is to say maybe, maybe is not always so the answers could be no or it could be yes. That being the case logic does not necessarily falsify anything in the real world,we cannot rely on logic to absolutely be the arbitrar of what is false. I dunno I mean when you state that logic doesn't by itself tell us anything about the truth or falsity of the real world how am I mistaken when I take that as a no? Sheesh Where am I going wrong? Thanks Vividvividbleau_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

I wrote a paragraph in answer to that: it is not a simple yes/no question, and it doesn't help to try to make it one. Logic is a tool that we using in understanding the world, and it works in conjunction with propositions we make about the world to refine our common understanding. Logic by itself can't tell us anything about the real woI wrote a paragraph in answer to that: it is not the simple yes/no question that you have redued it to, and it doesn't help to try to make it one. Logic is a tool that we using in understanding the world, and it works in conjunction with propositions we make about the world to refine our common understanding. Of course, we use logic to think about the world, and we can recognize when people make certain kinds of logical mistakes. But logic by itself can't tell us anything about the real world: neither what is true or false. If you would like to discuss any of the statements I've made, I'm willing to go further, but if not I'll just let my statements stand.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

JDK re 490 Am I correct is stating that your answer is yes to symbolic systems and no to things in the real world? Thanks Vividvividbleau_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

UB, give it up. I have virtually no knowledge that would allow me to discuss that subject.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Pindi Nothing you stated contradicts logic so what's your point? Now would you answer my more narrow question I posed to JDK? Thanks Vividvividbleau_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Any application of logic to the real world contains propositions that go beyond pure logic, and which are elements of a logical model. However, the efficacy of the model is dependent on the accuracy of the propositions, which is not something that logic itself can decide. All logic can do is manipulate the elements of the system and ascertain whether a propositions within the system logically follow, or not, including whether a proposition contradicts other accepted propositions.
I suddenly understand your reluctance to engage the evidence of semiosis at the origin of life. What to do with the astounding coherence between logic and universal observation if it challenges your cherished beliefs? Say you're not interested, of course.Upright BiPed_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

JDK, do you recognise the self-referentiality in your comment just now, and that it intends to address the real world by direct implication? it is entirely possible that statements that are part of a system and which address claimed real world entities, can and do fall under the stricture as already outlined. It should not be hard to see that when claimed assertions about the real world contradict, they fall under issues of falsification of at least one of the mutually opposed claims. Then, if the system-S includes or implies core statements X and Y, with Y = ~ X as already discussed, this reduces the system S to incoherence and self-falsification in material respects. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

I repeat,
Any application of logic to the real world contains propositions that go beyond pure logic, and which are elements of a logical model. However, the efficacy of the model is dependent on the accuracy of the propositions, which is not something that logic itself can decide. All logic can do is manipulate the elements of the system and ascertain whether a propositions within the system logically follow, or not, including whether a proposition contradicts other accepted propositions.
jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

JDK, no, logic can also apply to real world entities, as truth accurately describes such. So, we may consider claims about the real world and address them on truth, coherence and explanatory power. From this we may and routinely do draw inferences about what is true or false in this, in other possible, or even all possible worlds, depending on particulars. The Kantian claim about an ugly gulch between the inner thought world and the world of things in themselves is self-falsifying, by virtue of claiming to know that that world is unknowable. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Purely logical considerations can by applied to purely logical entities, like circles. That's what the first sentence of my paragraph at 490 said. The fact that square circles can't exist is an proposition of the abstract logical system of axiomatic geometry. No arguments from me about that.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Pindi & JDK, when a scheme of thought, say S, includes or entails claims X and Y such that Y is the denial of X, Y = ~X, S is inconsistent. Perhaps, these are not core to S and can be removed. However, if X and Y are such that they are core to S, then S is incoherent essentially and is self-falsifying. Not per some algebraic game that we may choose to play or may not choose to play but because of the same reason that a square circle cannot exist. Such a case is not merely contingently false in one or more possible worlds, it is necessarily false, false in all possible worlds. Where, patently, that I like coffee is only contingently false -- I could easily have acquired the taste through a visit to Cuba, where that was the standard beverage offered to guests. But, it is possible to geometrically construct a square circle is necessarily false. Yes, purely logical considerations tied to first principles of right reason clearly can falsify claims. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Vivid, your revised question still doesn't make much sense to me. It's false that I don't like cricket. How does logic tell me that?Pindi_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

That is a good and interesting question.
Can logic tell us what is false?
Only in symbolic systems which are self contained, with well-defined beginning axioms and definitions. Any application of logic to the real world contains propositions that go beyond pure logic, and which are elements of a logical model. However, the efficacy of the model is dependent on the accuracy of the propositions, which is not something that logic itself can decide. All logic can do is manipulate the elements of the system and ascertain whether a propositions within the system logically follow, or not, including whether a proposition contradicts other accepted propositions.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

JDK Thanks for your response. I will narrow the scope of the question. Can logic tell us what is false? Thanks Vividvividbleau_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Vivid, it's not just a yes or no question. It's a question that pre-supposes a lot of things that would take a lot of discussion, including the erroneous idea that a worldview is even something that is "true" in any meaningful sense of the word.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Pindi re 475 Of course a world view is not something that is true or false in itself, nor did I ask the question "is a worldview true or false in itself"? Here is the question once again, "If ones worldview generates logical absurdities can that worldview be true"? To ask it in another way for clarity purposes, do you agree that logic can tell us what cannot be true? Note I understand the limits of logic, it cant necessarily tell us what is true but can it tell us what cannot be true? Note to JDK, very telling that you comment on "rubber ducky's" but refuse to answer one simple question that you claimed you have already answered somewhere. Why not answer it again, its only a yes or no, what's up with that? Thanks Vividvividbleau_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply